|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
What's The Legality With K9s? ? ?
#10245373 - 04/27/09 08:12 PM (15 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I tried searching online, but didn't find jack. I am still searching.
Do you guys know what the legality is with regard to traffic stops and K9s?
Let's say you get pulled over and a cop asks for the typical BS ... license, registration, and proof of insurance. He comes back, issues you a ticket, and THEN says ... "I'm just gonna walk my dog around your car real quick".
I personally would decline and say that I prefer to be on my way, but do cops have the RIGHT to walk that bitch around your car just because they feel like it? I would imagine NOT, but it never hurts to ask. I've been in this situation before and told the cop NO NO NO. He did let me go, but followed me for quite some time. He was very persistent and I was just as persistent in saying no. I finally had to say, “unless you have probable cause or a warrant, I’ll be on my way”.
Just food for though. Did you know that K9s are trained to alert upon command? They truly are. If the cop walks the dog around your car and finds NOTHING, but really wants inside your car ... he will command the dog to allert and that IS probable cause to enter and perform a much more thorough search. This is the reason why I'm asking.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10247289 - 04/28/09 01:50 AM (15 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Cops don't work like that. They don't give you the ticket until they've searched or walked the dog around. That's their entire premise for making you wait.
If they give you the ticket first and then walk the dog around that isn't legal since they have no premise for detaining you.
Simply detaining people longer than it takes to write a ticket is illegal. Cases have been thrown out on that basis.
One lady waited over an hour for the dogs to get there on a minor traffic ticket. The dogs then indicated and they found several kilos of heroin in her trunk. It was all thrown out. She didn't get her heroin back BTW though.
> Did you know that K9s are trained to alert upon command?
LOL! Of course they are! Most dogs arent trained for shit. There only purpose is an excuse to violate your rights. There are well trained dogs that are trained to indicate on command, there are untrained dogs that know to indicate on command, and there are just regular dogs they parade around just to say they indicated. The whole thing is a sham.
-FF
|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: fastfred]
#10248219 - 04/28/09 08:56 AM (15 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
So ticket first dog second is not proper. That has happened to me before and I just said no. They didn't like it, but I was not detained (I would have been so screwed).
We have a LOT of K9 units where I'm from. It's not a big town and whenever ANYONE is pulled over the K9 unit conveniently arrives as backup. The dogs being present is a common sight where I'm from.
I'm just wondering what the legality is with regard to dogs being walked around the car. A cop has the right to walk around the car so I'm wondering if you can say no to a dog being walked around the car if the dog happens to be inside the cop's car or with the backup?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10248314 - 04/28/09 09:30 AM (15 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm just wondering what the legality is with regard to dogs being walked around the car. A cop has the right to walk around the car so I'm wondering if you can say no to a dog being walked around the car if the dog happens to be inside the cop's car or with the backup?
In the US, as long as the car is on public property, then there is no reason why a cop cannot walk a dog around the car. If you are being detained, then things change a bit, as they cannot keep you for an unreasonable amount of time waiting for a dog to show up. If the car is on private property, then things get ugly, and it could go either way, but the cop would probably win unless the curtilage of the home were well defined to include the location of the car as well (gates, no trespassing signs, mailbox and meters at the property line, etc).
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10248552 - 04/28/09 10:33 AM (15 years, 24 days ago) |
|
|
That SUCKS!
I figured as much. As mentioned before ... the only purpose for the dog is to skip right over our rights and leap right into searching our cars if the pig wants to.
I'll always protest and video tap regardless of the situation, but if I have no right to protest then those fuckers are brilliant. They found a loophole around our right to search and seize without a warrant or probable cause.
Cop: "I'm pulling over a pimped out car and they're young punks, could use K9 support".
2 minutes later the dog is commanded to alter and the pigs are rummaging through your shit. No legitimate probable cause required (the dog falsely alerting is their probable cause).
God help America.
Edited by NineInchNails (04/28/09 10:38 AM)
|
Mr. Bojangles
Breathe In



Registered: 04/08/08
Posts: 1,937
Loc: The Dirty
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10254884 - 04/29/09 10:21 AM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the only purpose for the dog is to skip right over our rights and leap right into searching our cars if the pig wants to.
Pretty much. But most of the time, if there's nothing overly suspicious (smells, person is obviously high/intoxicated, grateful dead bumper sticker) than the officer just issues a ticket.
My buddy trained a drug dog, and he could make that bitch bark and go crazy by just making a quick ticking sound with his mouth that was barely noticeable.
This is why you shouldn't drive with more than you can eat
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." Francois-Marie Arouet
|
vandago



Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 20,942
Loc: .
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: fastfred]
#10255154 - 04/29/09 11:04 AM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cops don't work like that. They don't give you the ticket until they've searched or walked the dog around. That's their entire premise for making you wait.
If they give you the ticket first and then walk the dog around that isn't legal since they have no premise for detaining you.
Simply detaining people longer than it takes to write a ticket is illegal. Cases have been thrown out on that basis.
Is this true?
I was stopped about 4 years ago........given a ticket while in the cops car. Then after he wrote the ticket I was getting out of his car to walk back.....and he asked me to wait a minute because he felt like searching me based on the smell of marijuana.....
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10255254 - 04/29/09 11:21 AM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NineInchNails said: They found a loophole around our right to search and seize without a warrant or probable cause.
I still can't believe that they're allowed to use dogs to sniff out drugs. We might as well take the 4th amendment right out of the US Constitution.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10256176 - 04/29/09 02:03 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
FUCKIN POLICE.
You guys should check out 'Cop Watch'. It's a group of guys that are always on standby with a video camera. They show up on the scene whenever cops are called or during pullovers. They simply stand there video taping to document what goes down. The cops hate it!
Every town needs a Cop Watch. They actually reduced arrests (due to getting people to wave their rights) over 90% in the areas where Cop Watch is present! ! !
I tell ya ... If I was not as bogged down in the daily BS I'd be part of it for sure. Nothing chaps my ass more than seeing young kids being dicked over because they don't know their rights.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10256307 - 04/29/09 02:28 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
If I could, I would join Cop Watch, too.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!

Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10256893 - 04/29/09 04:13 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
I'm just wondering what the legality is with regard to dogs being walked around the car. A cop has the right to walk around the car so I'm wondering if you can say no to a dog being walked around the car if the dog happens to be inside the cop's car or with the backup?
In the US, as long as the car is on public property, then there is no reason why a cop cannot walk a dog around the car. If you are being detained, then things change a bit, as they cannot keep you for an unreasonable amount of time waiting for a dog to show up. If the car is on private property, then things get ugly, and it could go either way, but the cop would probably win unless the curtilage of the home were well defined to include the location of the car as well (gates, no trespassing signs, mailbox and meters at the property line, etc).
It would be interesting to know how these signal would stand up in court for someone without proper signals as stated above. Is it wise to put a 'private property: no trespassing' sign on the residences of acquaintances so as they do not cause you any possible legal recourse?
Anyone have any cases in which this shows up in a qualified case dropped at a state or federal level? Based on property lines, what Seuss has mentioned above?
Just curious. I've seen nothing on these in my own research.
~Monk
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: numonkei]
#10257087 - 04/29/09 04:53 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
I don't have access to case search tools any longer, but in general, within the US, the courts have decided that 4th amendment rights only extend to property that is not visible (or accessible) to the public. In other words, only the curtilage of your home is protected from an unreasonable search. Traditionally, the courts find that the curtilage is anything enclosed by the walls of your home in which you live, but not your property or anything on your property. One can extend the curtilage of your home to your property line, but it is difficult. You must put up fences that block public view, put up no trespassing signs, install a gate, remove any need for a person to access anything beyond your property line (such as moving meters and mailboxes outside of the fence), etc.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine for details...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10257350 - 04/29/09 05:45 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
So basically, the 4th amendment practically doesn't exist anymore?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10257634 - 04/29/09 06:44 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
> So basically, the 4th amendment practically doesn't exist anymore? 
It is certainly not as strong as it once was. However, the courts are claiming that if something is accessible to the public, the it has no protection from unreasonable searches.
Wiki says it better than I can, "a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment."
Therefore, parking your car in your driveway, on private property, even with a no trespassing sign, will not protect the car from a walk around with a drug dog as the car has no reasonable expectation of privacy when clearly visible (and accessible) from a public road, thus the search is not a search. Viva lawyers. If you had a gate, fence, and had taken other precautions to extend the curtilage of your home to include your driveway, then the car would be protected.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10257738 - 04/29/09 07:01 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Seems like a completely blatant violation of the 4th amendment, I can't believe this shit goes on...
"Viva lawyers. If you had a gate, fence, and had taken other precautions to extend the curtilage of your home to include your driveway, then the car would be protected."
It sucks that we have to go the extra mile to protect our rights these days, when instead, that should be the duty of police officers.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mastamike1118


Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10258678 - 04/29/09 09:02 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
man i remember being in highschool and they would bring the dogs every blue moon and set up checkpoints as you walked in and then had em sniff all the lockers...lolthat was always bullshit scary tho..
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Mastamike1118]
#10258732 - 04/29/09 09:11 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Are you fucking serious? I once carried this very half oz. of purple trainwreck in my chem class in high school, and it reeked up the entire classroom! 

This Cannabis Club shit was dank!
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mastamike1118


Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10258941 - 04/29/09 09:45 PM (15 years, 23 days ago) |
|
|
that looks so beautiful
|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10268935 - 05/01/09 01:27 PM (15 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Seems like a completely blatant violation of the 4th amendment, I can't believe this shit goes on...
"Viva lawyers. If you had a gate, fence, and had taken other precautions to extend the curtilage of your home to include your driveway, then the car would be protected."
It sucks that we have to go the extra mile to protect our rights these days, when instead, that should be the duty of police officers. 
Remember how common 'white picket fences' and gates used to be?
That's because it was a symbol of DO NOT PASS THIS LINE. Picket fences don't keep anyone in or out ... but they are a do not pass line that is indisputable.
Now these days white picket fences are considered as gay and people like to make fun of them so they are now uncommon. That's why cops can simply walk right up to your house, peep into your windows and BUST YOUR ASS for what they see.
It's not illegal for cops to LOOK at what is in plain view. Signs don't and can't keep anyone out. I knew that cops can walk right up to your car and peek around ... but I was wondering what rights cops have to walk a fucking dog around your car. Evidently they have EVERY right to do it as long as they do it WHILE they already have a valid reason to initially pull you over which can be nearly anything. I’ve had a cop pull me over just to say ‘be careful … it’s snowing hard’. Piece of shit.
I'll pitch a bitch if that ever happens to me regardless what the cops or the law says about it. I don't care I'll make a fucking scene. As far as I'm concerned I didn't give them permission to search and that’s including the use of a damn dog. You just can’t let them do it and not say anything about it. It’s just plain wrong.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10271090 - 05/01/09 10:37 PM (15 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NineInchNails said: Now these days white picket fences are considered as gay and people like to make fun of them so they are now uncommon. That's why cops can simply walk right up to your house, peep into your windows and BUST YOUR ASS for what they see.
, an old next-door neighbor I used to have literally had a white picket fence!
But in all seriousness, I agree with you 100%. They should only be allowed to use K-9's to sniff out bombs, which can be a real-time life threatening emergency, instead of drugs, which pretty much just make for some good times!
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Humility
Working on it


Registered: 10/07/08
Posts: 6,745
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10272066 - 05/02/09 06:30 AM (15 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
If the constitution required some kind of barrier or perimeter around one's property, it should have specified that as such.
If a private citizen walks on to someone's property in the wrong state they can be shot dead on the spot, in almost any state you'd be charged with at least trespassing yet police are allowed to violate the property rights of a citizen without any ado.
IMO there's no point in owning property in a place where that kind of behavior is allowed. Part of my definition of property is my private space where others will not enter without my allowance short of committing a crime against me, and it's clear that property owners in the United States do not have that expectation.
--------------------

|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Humility]
#10272141 - 05/02/09 07:09 AM (15 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Humility said: If the constitution required some kind of barrier or perimeter around one's property, it should have specified that as such.
If a private citizen walks on to someone's property in the wrong state they can be shot dead on the spot, in almost any state you'd be charged with at least trespassing yet police are allowed to violate the property rights of a citizen without any ado.
IMO there's no point in owning property in a place where that kind of behavior is allowed. Part of my definition of property is my private space where others will not enter without my allowance short of committing a crime against me, and it's clear that property owners in the United States do not have that expectation.
Exactly correct.
Its really a huge problem with the present court in my opinion.
How the hell can it be a legal search to trespass when there is no pressing need?
Same with the supreme court allowing cops to take trash from private property without warrants on the grounds that it is "abandoned". You try doing that and see what happens when someone complains- you'll be charged with trespassing or theft.
I'm really sick of the double standard. The law is the law. Police don't have special privledges to disobey the law. They are taking away all ability to resist this kind of crap. You need a fortress just to get your recognized rights, and then they'd put your fortifications in the warrant app as evidence that you are different then the other folks in the neighborhood and therefore suspicious.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10282136 - 05/04/09 03:32 AM (15 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
you should always say to a cop after receiving your ticket, "Thank you, sir, may I pull away?" or similar. You should also ask the officer what the issue is on his FIRST visit to the window, don't let him hold you while he runs your numbers - if there's a possibility you might want to get a search excluded, you need to have worked to delineate the beginning and end of your detention. Asking him if you are free to go is perfectly innocent - you are just a citizen who wants to avoid creating a scene or alarming this fine officer by pulling away too early, right?
You should always double check your specific state and local laws, but generally once cited for a single violation (or set of violations - a single traffic stop, essentially), your detention ends and you can leave.
Whenever dealing with the cops, be polite, focus on what is going on,think before you speak, and never directly refuse a request - if a cop request you do something like roll down your window all the way, do not say, "No, I don't have to do that," say something like, "I can hear you sir. What seems to be the issue" - this is twofold, it means you can always claim legit ignorance later, and it avoids any hint of confrontational resistance.
Keeping your information in one place, organized, is good as well - don't make the mistake of opening every cubby in your car looking for paperwork. I keep mine clamped right in the makeup mirror. Even if you aren't keeping something in the cubbies, you are exposing more and more things for him to look at and claim cause - "Oh he had a lighter/cash/passport/empty baggie/rubber bands/etc that deepened my suspicion, your honor"
On the dog, specifically, never give them permission to run a dog. At the very least, make your non-consent known - remember, cops will do what they are allowed to do without consent regardless. You can't lose out by politely saying you object to the search. Keep stuff high in the car and wrap it right before you move it - mj is oilly and works through all packaging given time (remember barely anything has to be detectable for a dog to smell it)
Sometimes - just very rarely, mind you - it can be smart to go ahead and consent to a quick search. When you know your stash is hidden well, you haven't been using in the car, and you have no other contraband...
in that exact situation - your well-wrapped, well-hidden stash is the only thing in the car and you've given him nothing else - I'm with Barry Cooper of never get busted - I think your odds are often better with joe patrol then they are with joes dog, and if you have a good stash spot, letting him look around might be better then letting his dog sniff around. Sometimes if you agree to a casual request, they don't even bother, if your car is very normal looking inside.
The ACLU says different, but their advice is geared more toward taking a stand against harassment when you aren't doing anything, not "getting away with it"
that's a VERY controversial and situational idea, though. If you have a decorated car - if you are Nancy Botwin and look total square, and your car is clean other then the stash, consenting to a simple search can be ok, but if you have 420 stickers, norml shit, BAD COP NO DONUT stickers etc, expect to be fucked with a little and maybe don't hold in that car in the first place, and expect a good hard search if you consent.
and if you aren't doing anything, I say waste the dudes time so someone else can get away!
Edited by JohnnyConverse (05/04/09 03:34 AM)
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: johnm214]
#10282161 - 05/04/09 03:50 AM (15 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Humility said: If the constitution required some kind of barrier or perimeter around one's property, it should have specified that as such.
If a private citizen walks on to someone's property in the wrong state they can be shot dead on the spot, in almost any state you'd be charged with at least trespassing yet police are allowed to violate the property rights of a citizen without any ado.
IMO there's no point in owning property in a place where that kind of behavior is allowed. Part of my definition of property is my private space where others will not enter without my allowance short of committing a crime against me, and it's clear that property owners in the United States do not have that expectation.
Exactly correct.
Its really a huge problem with the present court in my opinion.
How the hell can it be a legal search to trespass when there is no pressing need?
Same with the supreme court allowing cops to take trash from private property without warrants on the grounds that it is "abandoned". You try doing that and see what happens when someone complains- you'll be charged with trespassing or theft.
I'm really sick of the double standard. The law is the law. Police don't have special privledges to disobey the law. They are taking away all ability to resist this kind of crap. You need a fortress just to get your recognized rights, and then they'd put your fortifications in the warrant app as evidence that you are different then the other folks in the neighborhood and therefore suspicious.
There is a general "fence out" doctrine - the cop has the right (according to current law, I'm not saying he really has the right through natural law) to police any area the public might enter. If you don't fence your yard to exclude the public, for example, he has some right to investigate that property for public/attractive nuisances, to follow pursuits there, to walk around the property, etc. Because your prop is un-delineated and has some aspects of a public place, the cop is able to police it. In fact, if your prop is unfenced, the cop can even use YOUR safety as cause to invade your prop - all he needs is a generic radio call re a suspicious person casing houses or a vagrant in a local alley, and anything in plain sight - including through windows and openings - while he "checks out the report" is policible.
And once a cop is on your property for any legit reason, he can make a pretty good case to include anything he sees, as long as he doesn't go over certain lines. A cop checking your yard to see if your fertilizer didn't break any local codes (the justification can be that dumb if they really want you) could say, look in your car's windows, but probably not open your trunk.
also, remember to ID any public employee that claims a legit need to inspect your house, and remember that even if they aren't cops, they can and will call them(Informants from cable companies or other public agencies such as utilities have dropped more then one dime, and often even get paid for doing it)
also, if a non-patrol cop wants to depose or interview you, either step outside and TT them there or better yet try to get them to make an appointment for you to come to them. If your front room is clean and has doors, you can shut them and TT officers there, but be aware that while they can't do a hard search, they can nose around - and esp. avoid distraction techniques to get you out of the room so they can paw around or tricks to access more of your house - like asking for water (gets you to get up and leave for a sec) or to use the bathroom (guy gets to walk through a couple more rooms of your house)
sorry, I know I'm textwalling and digressing a little, but I like spreading the word on these things. Didn't mean to ramble.
Edit: Also, the delineation doesn't have to be some imposing 10 foot security fence, a decent chain link fence or something is fine, normal to have for pets. There are even colored slats you can get to run through the links to make the fence more opaque - many people get them to hide junk in the back yard or to keep their dogs from endlessly barking at neighbors. Granted, a ten' fence does seal the view off totally, which is awesome, but any fence will keep the walk-ins down.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
Edited by JohnnyConverse (05/04/09 03:55 AM)
|
NineInchNails
Stranger

Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 1,190
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
|
JohnnyConverse that's all excellent info.
You sound pretty well informed so I would like to ask you directly the same question this thread was written for 
If you're pulled over and a cop walks up and says "licesnse, registration, and proof of insurance" meanwhile you see another cop on his way to your car with a DOG ... does the cop have the right to walk around the car with the dog even though I protest?
I'm sure state and local laws differ, but what is the verdict in your experience?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10284425 - 05/04/09 03:30 PM (15 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you're pulled over and a cop walks up and says "licesnse, registration, and proof of insurance" meanwhile you see another cop on his way to your car with a DOG ... does the cop have the right to walk around the car with the dog even though I protest?
It doesn't matter how many times you ask, in the US, the answer is going to be an "absolute yes" until/unless the Supreme Court makes some major changes. It may not be right, but that is how it is. Were you forced to wait for hours on end while the drug dog showed up, then you would have a case. If the drug dog showed up while the cop that pulled you over was processing your ticket, you have nothing to argue with. Even if the reason the original cop pulled you over was bogus, and even if he didn't get you a ticket, the subsequent "search" with the drug dog will stand.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: NineInchNails]
#10287533 - 05/04/09 11:02 PM (15 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NineInchNails said: JohnnyConverse that's all excellent info.
You sound pretty well informed so I would like to ask you directly the same question this thread was written for 
If you're pulled over and a cop walks up and says "licesnse, registration, and proof of insurance" meanwhile you see another cop on his way to your car with a DOG ... does the cop have the right to walk around the car with the dog even though I protest?
I'm sure state and local laws differ, but what is the verdict in your experience?
Sadly, the whole reason for the dogs is that they have better senses and so extend the idea of "plain sight" for the cop. The dog and trainer have just as much legal right to walk down the street as anyone else, having better senses doesn't change the standards for a search.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but as far as I know this is how that goes every time. It sounds like the situation in your OP involved getting caught out real close to a dog by sad coincidence.
If you could somehow prove they follow you with a dog all the time, you might have some kind of cause of action/complaint, but that's a longshot. I'm talkin' corealis-effect long.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
|
Quote:
Sometimes - just very rarely, mind you - it can be smart to go ahead and consent to a quick search. When you know your stash is hidden well, you haven't been using in the car, and you have no other contraband...
You better be careful there. You can easily take a situation from "could never possibly get busted" to "I just handed them all the evidence they need for a conviction.
If you stand up against a search you win almost every time. If you consent to a search you've just fucked yourself. Just watch as that "casual search" turns into a 3 hour search where they tear your seats out and leave you on the side of the road with no tools. That does happen.
You don't know what the cop knows or what he thinks he knows. He may have watched you stash it or knows somehow that you think your shit is too well hidden for him to find. It might even be a bunk tip. By consenting you've just bent over for them to shove it up your ass.
No matter how innocent you are you've just consented to getting fucked for hours if you let them search.
Whatever Barry Cooper says, the times you should consent (unless you're just wasting their time and fucking with them) are about 1 in 100 or less.
Often that consent just lets them hold you there until a drug dog gets there. Then you have no case, where if you hadn't consented you'd be home free.
-FF
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: fastfred]
#10295066 - 05/06/09 02:40 AM (15 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
I disclaimed it pretty heavily. If you're given the choice between being detained waiting for a dog and letting him search, and you think he can get the dog there quick, and you think he'll miss what you're holding, etc etc
You can ALSO provoke the hell out of them by refusing consent and have that go tits up on you and result in them calling a dog as well - both are situational. The bottom line is holding = risk, always.
Refusing is smartest if your goose is cooked, that's for sure. It's also smartest if you judge the guy is really going to search. I'm talking about that occasion where the guy asks looking to rattle you, which does happen.
A big key is the legitimacy of the stop - if you really were speeding or something, or if he tells you right away what you did, you might profit in the situation by providing answers to some of his questions. Dogma on sites like this is to insist on the letter of every one of your rights, but sometimes that isn't the right play - answering questions like where you are going (although I always say "The store" or something) can relax the cop and keep him from ever asking to search, as can turning on your dome light without being prompted, keeping your hands in view as he approaches, etc. I think if someone is breaking the law, their criteria should be successfully evading detection, not teaching cops about civil liberties.
Obviously, it's also going to depend on the person and the weight on the day - a person with felony weight should obviously refuse all consent.
In the same vein, I have never gotten a fix-it or a warning on any stop where I told a cop I wasn't telling him where I was going, or refused to roll my window down. If you play to the letter of things, expect him to as well.
Note: I'm not advocating generally co-operating with police, or giving in to them, or waiving all your rights, I'm telling you, a wise man thinks on his feet and acts to limit his interactions with police. If you are NOT a dupe and you know NOT to believe the cop and you are NOT engaging in foolish behavior like drunk driving, you can sometimes better your position by, with your eyes open and your brain on, adapting to the situation as it actually is and not as it's presented in skits on how to talk to cops. Some of that stuff works like the jedi mind tricks they act like it is in those ACLU videos, but some of it will really agitate them sometimes - you need to know your rights, know your options, know what has happened to other people, and make an educated, organic response to the threat that day, That's all I'm saying.
Even if you're "fucking with" them - have the sense not to do it on your way too or from any "business" because a guy that knows and insists on every one of his rights in a traffic stop will raise red flags and raise his own profile. Before you "Fuck with" them ( and yes, I've done it), you have to decide if the satisfaction is worth the potential profile. If you're active all the time, and they catch you clean, acting like a dumb citizen for that encounter can help you - even though it's not the best for "reforming the system" or "fixing the police problem" and doesn't teach them a lesson down the road, if it helps you get away and look clean, it might be the best option.
Once again, rights are generally in place for a reason, and i don't want anyone to read what I posted and think they should routinely accept searches - you should think carefully before and always try to avoid ever giving any rights up - but you should also know all your options. The ACLU or the other parties disseminating this info have generally benevolent agendas, but they are still working from a point of view of rights and reform, and not a literal POV of "Getting away with running your game 101"
My personal experiences with cops and my conversations with ex cops have taught me this. It is my sincere desire that NO ONE ever go to jail for a drug crime, period. Even those drugs that are arguably harmful or less benevolent should be enforced via a system of civil penalty or something - drug tickets, drug warnings, not drug prison terms.
But until we get that day, I think people should do what keeps them out of jail.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> It's also smartest if you judge the guy is really going to search.
I've never heard of a cop asking to search, being given permission, and then deciding not to search. If anybody has given permission to search and been let go without a search, please chime in.
I asked my friend that is ex-NYPD about this. He said that anytime he asked to search a car it was because he had a "hunch" that something wasn't right and that he was going to do the search, legally, regardless of consent. The only reason he asked was to strengthen his case in court, but he was not obligated to ask and had legal authority to search any vehicle that he pulled over for a traffic violation. (He has been an ex-cop for a while now; I'm not sure if police rights have changed, or if these police rights are specific to the New York jurisdiction.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Mastamike1118


Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10295867 - 05/06/09 09:00 AM (15 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
thats fucked up^
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10296567 - 05/06/09 11:51 AM (15 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > It's also smartest if you judge the guy is really going to search.
I've never heard of a cop asking to search, being given permission, and then deciding not to search. If anybody has given permission to search and been let go without a search, please chime in.
I asked my friend that is ex-NYPD about this. He said that anytime he asked to search a car it was because he had a "hunch" that something wasn't right and that he was going to do the search, legally, regardless of consent. The only reason he asked was to strengthen his case in court, but he was not obligated to ask and had legal authority to search any vehicle that he pulled over for a traffic violation. (He has been an ex-cop for a while now; I'm not sure if police rights have changed, or if these police rights are specific to the New York jurisdiction.)
Maybe it's a regional thing. I live in the midwest and it's pretty much every time you're pulled over they ask you if they can "look around" and they ALWAYS ask if you have "anything dangerous" in the car - usually I just sigh and say I'm in a hurry or something, which is the best solution - to protect your rights without saying, "NO OFFICER ACCORDING TO MY RIGHTS I DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY" because when you say that the pork brain hears "MY PENIS IS 9" OFFICER AND PRETTY HEAVY HOW LONG IS YOURS AND DO YOU PLEASE YOUR WIFE WITH IT OR DO OTHERS TAKE CARE OF THAT DURING YOUR LONG SHIFTS"
So like, I would refuse consent like this:
Cop: "Yew mahnd if we tahk a look in yer ve-hick-el, son?"
Me: Sigh, "I really don't have time for that officer. Can we just address this speeding thing?"
Him: "Ah kin call ah dawg"
Me: "Look, I know you're just doing your job, but why don't we save the dog for the volkswagon busses? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I'd like to get out of here now. Is that OK?"
If this or a similar brush off doesn't work, he'll ask you again more pissed off, and that's when you just firmly say no. Because he got pissed first, and it's going to sound more like he escalated things.
It's worth noting I used to drive a very square car - sliver, unpopular make of SUV with no flash, no options, no decoration - and I got asked this less often. My newsest car is a newer black SUV with tinted windows, premium wheels, etc, and it draws a lot more attention in general, I now often get pulled over late at night for "weaving" or "drifting and correcting" or similar BS, to the point that it is a factor in maybe trading it in.
The other thing is, I'm often dealing with state patrol in the middle of long stretches of highway, and they usually patrol in singles with their backup and dogs further away. A city prowl car with two guys in it and a k-9 home-based 3 blocks away might be a whole different thing. I have to say though, I have NEVER heard of a cop having legal authority to search ANY vehicle he pulled over. If your friend is/was an NYPD cop that might have been a special state of affairs owing to the elevated security consciousness in NYC.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
jewunit
Brutal!

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 34,264
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10296723 - 05/06/09 12:22 PM (15 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > It's also smartest if you judge the guy is really going to search.
I've never heard of a cop asking to search, being given permission, and then deciding not to search. If anybody has given permission to search and been let go without a search, please chime in.
No, but I've been in a car/driving a car that's been searched a few times. One time I was driving on a suspended license and it wasn't my car, so I really had no grounds to refuse a search. However I was a well spoken white college kid coming from Syracuse Univeristy to my friend's house (kids car that I was driving so the cops believed me), and you have to drive through a pretty shitty neighborhood to get there. I cooperated with them, was polite, rolled my window all the way down "Yes sir no sir", the whole nine yards. They searched the center console and the glove box. There were baggies in the console and a scale pretty poorly hidden in the glove box. The cop just pulled the baggies out to show the other cop, laughed, and put them back.
Another time I was driving and in a car with nothing in it, the cop asked to search for whatever shitty reason so I complied. Same deal, check the center console, under the seats, and the glove box. Wrote my ticket and sent me on my way.
Third time I wasn't driving and the kid who was put up a big stink the whole time. I don't remember how he ended up letting the cop search or how the cop ended up being able to search (I was pretty drunk), but he did and he had a field day searching that car.
I find the best policy is to be polite and honest with cops. Now keep in mind I don't smoke weed, let alone sell it. I never have anything in my car. When I get stopped my goal is to get out of there with the least amount of tickets possible. I'm not gonna fuck around and flex my rights unless I got stopped for rolling a stop sign and they have nothing else on me. Then I'll give 'em a hard time. Otherwise it's completely polite, and usually completely honest. Turn the car off, answer all their questions bluntly, no bullshit excuses, no getting lippy. I find that has probably reduced the amount of tickets I've had in the past.
-------------------- !
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> I have to say though, I have NEVER heard of a cop having legal authority to search ANY vehicle he pulled over.
Who knows... what cops think they have the right to do, and what the courts say they have the right to do, are often two different things. Next time I see him, I will ask for more details. It could be a local thing, like requiring drivers to submit to a breathalyzer/blood test if requested as part of the 'right' of having a drivers license.
I also agree that it is always better to be polite and treat cops with respect rather than mouthing off about how you know your rights. One can always ask questions politely that tell the cop you know your rights. For example, "I'm sorry officer, but I know you are busy and I am in a hurry. Am I being detained, or am I free to leave?"
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Seuss]
#10297746 - 05/06/09 04:18 PM (15 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
> I have to say though, I have NEVER heard of a cop having legal authority to search ANY vehicle he pulled over.
Sounds like he may have been talking about a terry search.
|
riosricky
Stranger


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 255
Loc: Nor Cal ^
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Poid]
#10310343 - 05/08/09 09:43 PM (15 years, 14 days ago) |
|
|
they say they will bring the dog, then the dog won't even fucking blink. Then they will say the dog signaled to him that there are narcotics in the car. Basically they can fucking make shit up to get what they want. You can have a hidden compartment and hope a cop never asks to search your car.
--------------------
|
79towncar
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/08
Posts: 310
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: riosricky]
#10313062 - 05/09/09 02:14 PM (15 years, 13 days ago) |
|
|
K-9s are a tough subject. Both in court and in the Field. If ever busted by a K-9 make sure your attorney questions the credibility of the animal. There have been cases dropped in which an attorney was able to prove that the particular animal in question is not credible. If the animal is not credible then there was no probable cause..
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 4 months, 6 days
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: 79towncar]
#10324977 - 05/11/09 11:33 PM (15 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
First, this is not legal advice I am not a lawyer.
K9s can be used to search a car when ever you and your car are detained. They only need probable cause to pull you over. As I recall the reason for this is that the dogs are not searching "your car" they are searching the air around your car. If the air around your car smells like drugs, than it gives the police probable cause for searching your car.
I know that sounds dumb, but I am pretty sure that is how the SCOTUS got around the fourth amendment.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: Smackshadow]
#10327252 - 05/12/09 01:25 PM (15 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I have to say though, I have NEVER heard of a cop having legal authority to search ANY vehicle he pulled over.
Who knows... what cops think they have the right to do, and what the courts say they have the right to do, are often two different things. Next time I see him, I will ask for more details. It could be a local thing, like requiring drivers to submit to a breathalyzer/blood test if requested as part of the 'right' of having a drivers license.
I also agree that it is always better to be polite and treat cops with respect rather than mouthing off about how you know your rights. One can always ask questions politely that tell the cop you know your rights. For example, "I'm sorry officer, but I know you are busy and I am in a hurry. Am I being detained, or am I free to leave?"
I would imagine that he was refering to the fact that if he wants to pull someone over he can always get it ruled legally permisable without having to even lie about objective facts.. And since most cops will lie even about the objective facts, it seems, there ya go.Quote:
Smackshadow said: First, this is not legal advice I am not a lawyer.
K9s can be used to search a car when ever you and your car are detained. They only need probable cause to pull you over. As I recall the reason for this is that the dogs are not searching "your car" they are searching the air around your car. If the air around your car smells like drugs, than it gives the police probable cause for searching your car.
I know that sounds dumb, but I am pretty sure that is how the SCOTUS got around the fourth amendment.
They don't need probable cause to pull you over. Its supposed to be a limited exception for officer and public safety, but really its bullshit. There is some limitations, but might as well be none for a cop who's not a complete idiot and willing to lie.
And yeah, a dog sniff isn't a search when its not in the car.
Really your fourth amendment rights are almost meaningless in the passenger compartment of a car. Carry a very, very small locked case in the trunk if you want any protection for the contents at all. Best to have the key not on you or at least not assecible to you in the passenger compartment. Make it as difficult to access and improbable as possible that it could hold a weapon to get the most protection.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: johnm214]
#10328048 - 05/12/09 03:56 PM (15 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
> They don't need probable cause to pull you over.
Routine traffic stops are illegal in most states. So they do usually need a reason to pull you over.
Most cops know how to lie or cheat their way out of this (crossed a line, not a complete stop, license plate light out, crack in the windshield, something hanging from the rearview, didn't use turn signal, stopped past the crosswalk, didn't look both ways, etc., etc..)
However this is where they fuck up a lot of times. Sometimes they will say something that they couldn't have seen until they got 3 feet away or they say they pulled you over to remind you that your tabs are due in a month or claim something that is a lie and their cop car camera proves it.
-FF
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: fastfred]
#10328526 - 05/12/09 05:50 PM (15 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah they're dumb, which is quite often how they slip up. What's disgusting is how the courts ignore it when the cops lie. I totally busted, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a cop lieing in a speeding case. Magistrate didn't care.
But I didn't say they didn't need any reason, was just saying they didn't need probable cause.
They can do a terry stop. Yeah its bullshit to think "hmm, that guy driving away from me might have a weapon and be about to attack me! To keep myself safe I will initiate contact rather than let him go...." but they do it and the courts allow it.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location. Police went to the site, found the vehicle, and detained the driver. The police then found marijuana and cocaine in the automobile. The Court observed that it was a "close case" but concluded that the tip and its corroboration were sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop that ultimately led to the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the drugs.
Read more: "Stop and Frisk - Further Readings" - http://law.jrank.org/pages/10536/Stop-Frisk.html#ixzz0FL5OCjb8&A
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10536/Stop-Frisk.html
(haven't checked the case, but comports with the bullshit I've seen)
The courts basically worship "officer safety" but it totally makes no sense. If they need to search a suspect to make sure they aren't armed while the police talk to him, how can the search become the impetus for the entire stop? It makes no sense- if the person doesn't consent to being stopped then their is no grounds since the entire justification is that the officer should be safe during his talk with the suspect- if there is no talk there is no justification.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: johnm214]
#10331835 - 05/13/09 11:18 AM (15 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Sounds like they had a corroborated tip in that case. That's a little different from just randomly stopping people for a terry search.
-FF
|
79towncar
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/08
Posts: 310
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: What's The Legality With K9s? ? ? [Re: fastfred]
#10332675 - 05/13/09 02:23 PM (15 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
SEUSS- A friend of mine was driving a stolen a car and got pulled over on a big highway up here. It was at night and an officer got out of his car and held a gun on my friend and his friend. As they were about to get out of the car a drunk driver slammed into the back of the police cruiser.. The 2 guys driving the stolen car took off hoped on the nearest exit and fled on foot.. They both got away but later were apprehended for another stolen car theft. But this fits into the scenario you mentioned earlier about a cop always searching a car when giving consent. They will always try and search a car if they suspect you of anything.
|
|